Tag Archives: Court: 9th Circuit

USA Today / Faith & Reason: “The Alliance Defense Fund, part of the Prop8 legal support, is delighted with the ruling. It’s press release says, ‘This case has just begun. ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

Associated Press: “‘I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it’s gone through the complete appellate process really prevailed,’ said [Douglas Napier], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm. ‘Rather than have this kind of pingpong effect of having the decision overturned, appealed and then overturned again, it’s better to have this kind of decision,’ he said.”

Daily Mail (UK): “‘I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it’s gone through the complete appellate process,’ said [Douglas Napier], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “‘This is the right thing to do, and it makes things less chaotic and uncertain,’ said [Douglas Napier], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘The status quo is going to be maintained until this issue is resolved.’”

Mercury News: “[Douglas Napier], a senior lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the groups defending the law, said they have the right to press the appeal. ‘We have standing,’ he said. ‘The people of California shouldn’t lose by a forfeit because the governor refused to do his job.’”

Jonathan H. Adler writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “I think that the defenders of Proposition 8 do have standing to appeal the decision, just as they had standing to intervene, and that even if they do not, the officials of Imperial County would, and should have been permitted to intervene. Although I generally support a rather narrow view of standing, I largely agree with Michael Dorf that it would be anomalous were state officials able to effectively nullify state ballot initiatives simply by refusing to defend such initiatives in Court. Further, I think the interest of the proposition’s defenders on appeal is equivalent to that of an initiative’s sponsors who could file suit to ensure their initiative appears on the ballot in the first place.”

San Mateo County Daily Journal: “Same-sex marriage may be a win for the heart, but local business hope it also proves to be a boon to the pocketbook when a whole new demographic begins saying I do to flowers, cakes and rings.”

ChristianWebNews: “ADF Litigation Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell]: ‘The Protectmarriage.com legal team will appeal immediately to the 9th Circuit to stay the trial court’s decision until this case is concluded. This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

Oakland Tribune editorial: “It would be a shame if the appeals court did not grant standing to the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports Prop. 8 and was a party that tried the case in Walker’s court. Walker delayed his stay on allowing same-sex marriage only until 5 p.m. Wednesday. If an appeal were denied due to lack of standing, same-sex marriage would be allowed at that time. That is hardly the best way to advance a major social and legal reform.”

L.A. Watts Times: “[Jim Campbell], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund who participated in the defense in the San Francisco case, tells the L.A. Watts Times that the Supreme Court doesn’t hear a case unless it decides to do so, but ‘one thing’s for sure: Whoever loses before the Ninth Circuit (court) will ask the Supreme Court to hear this case.’”

SCOTUSblog: “California’s Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., formally notified the Ninth Circuit Court Friday night that the state will not appeal a federal judge’s ruling striking down the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. That position, along with a flurry of other filings in the Circuit Court, puts new emphasis on a basic issue: can anyone else carry on the case? And that comes down mainly to a question of state law: who speaks for California, legally? . . . Adding another element to the controversy over who may appeal is a claim by the local governing body of Imperial County, Calif., and its marriage licensing officer that they have their own, independent right to pursue an appeal. In a filing Friday in their own, related case pending in the Circuit Court, they asked to be allowed to support the Proposition 8 backers’ plea for postponement.”

Erwin Chemerinsky writing in the Los Angeles Times: “Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts federal courts to deciding ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’ The Supreme Court long has held that in order to meet this requirement, a person or group pursuing legal action must have standing, a status conferred only on those who have suffered a direct, concrete injury. An ideological objection to a government action, no matter how strongly felt, is insufficient for standing.”

Christian Science Monitor: “Do proponents of Proposition 8, California’s gay-marriage ban, have any legal standing to appeal last week’s federal court ruling declaring it unconstitutional? . . . ‘[We] are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld,’ said Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell] in a statement. ‘It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard.’”

NY Daily News: “‘It’s ridiculous to think that the proponents of the ballot initiative would be prevented from continuing to represent the successful result of that initiative all the way,’ [Douglas Napier], the group’s lawyer told the San Francisco Chronicle.”

Cliff Kincaid writing at News With Views: “Senator John Cornyn . . . and Representative Pete Sessions . . . will be participating in a September 22 [event] sponsored by the Log Cabin Republicans . . . A Log Cabin spin-off known as GOProud is featuring conservative commentator Ann Coulter at its ‘Homocon’ event a few days later in New York City . . . Meanwhile, with the votes of Republican Senators Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, Richard Lugar, Lindsey Graham, and Olympia Snowe, Elena Kagan was confirmed . . . The ‘Republican’ governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a long-time backer of the Log Cabin Republicans, refused to defend the law in court. The legal battle to save traditional marriage has been carried out by the Alliance Defense Fund.”

“A motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court on Friday set a fast schedule for reviewing a plea to put on hold, for several months, a federal judge’s ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.”

Blog of LegalTimes: “[T]he possibility is real that the case might never make it on appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s because the advocates of Prop 8, who are launching the appeal, may not have the necessary ‘standing’ to carry it forward. The case is titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other officials in the position of defending the ballot initiative. But those officials, who are sympathetic toward gay marriage to varying degrees, are not inclined to appeal Walker’s ruling . . . Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf, while sympathizing with Walker’s decision, wrote recently on his blog that a good argument can be made for standing when state officials are reluctant to defend a successful ballot initiative.”

The Raw Story: “‘We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal,’ said [Jim Campbell], an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8 . . . ‘What Judge Walker’s ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court,’ said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. ‘And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, “by the way, you never can defend this.” It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that.’”

The Desert Sun: “David B. Cruz, a constitutional law expert and professor in the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, said the panel would have to consider if those pushing for Proposition 8 to remain in effect have the right to appeal the case in the first place . . . ‘We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal,’ said [Jim Campbell], an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8.”

Stateline.org: “The decision by the elected officials is significant, because they are the two named defendants in the underlying case. That means that if they don’t decide to appeal, there may be nothing that supporters of Proposition 8 can do to stop the weddings from taking place . . . The Sacramento Bee quoted attorney Sara Tappen, of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a supporter of Proposition 8. Tappen told the paper the proposition’s backers should have their appeal heard and ‘have a right to be defended,’ despite state officials who she said ‘refused to defend the laws of the people they represent.’”

OneNewsNow: “Alliance Defense Fund has already launched the process to send the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ADF attorney Sara Tappen tells OneNewsNow that Walker’s ruling is remarkable in light of the magnitude of the issue. ‘It certainly does seem [that way],’ she replies. ‘We had a very strong case for that and we’re confident that at the Ninth Circuit they will be able to review that and see how strong our case for the stay was.’”

Christian Science Monitor: “‘This case has just begun,’ said [Jim Campbell], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund. He said the legal team was ‘confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’ . . . [Walker] went on in his 11-page order to question whether Proposition 8 proponents still have legal standing to pursue the case. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have both announced that they will not seek an appeal in the case. They also declined to seek a stay of Walker’s ruling.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker invalidated Proposition 8 last week, saying the ban was discriminatory and unconstitutional. At the time, he put a temporary stay on his ruling, meaning it could not be enforced . . . [Douglas Napier], an attorney who defended Prop. 8, said . . . he is confident his side will win on appeal. After Walker’s ruling, which was the result of a nonjury trial in January, he called the setback a legal ‘bump in the road.’”

The Christian Post: “The Alliance Defense Fund, which has been defending California’s Prop. 8, announced immediately after Walker’s ruling that it would appeal to the 9th Circuit to stay the trial court’s decision until the case is concluded. ‘This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld,’ remarked ADF Litigation Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell].”

BeliefNet (RNS): “‘This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld,’ said [Jim Campbell], an ADF lawyer.”

Worthy News: “‘It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,’ according to a statement released by the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘If the trial’s court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to the stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending.’”

OC Weekly: “Whatever strategy it uses, the opposition is without doubt preparing for war. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is funding and litigating the defense of Prop. 8, is already using the energy of loss to fuel its defense of the proposition. ‘We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision,’ said ADF senior counsel [Brian Raum] in a statement released after the ruling.”

ADF Attorney David Hacker writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “[A] Lopez ruling may give us some insight into the Ninth Circuit’s view of the Prop 8 decision, which has been appealed to that court. After all, the cases bear several similarities . . . In defending the professor’s actions, the College argued that some speech and beliefs do not merit constitutional protection. Similarly, in Perry, the plaintiffs argued that the votes or speech of 7 million Californians should not count because their beliefs are rooted in prejudice . . . Second, in Lopez, the professor silenced the student’s ability to speak. In Perry, the plaintiffs argued and the court ruled that the People of California cannot exercise their rights to speak and vote by supporting a definition of marriage that is millennia old . . . If the Ninth Circuit properly rejects the College’s argument and holds that Lopez has the right to speak freely on campus about his religious beliefs, no matter how much some may disagree with them, then the court might – and should – extend that logic to Perry and hold that citizens of a state have a right to define marriage as they wish, no matter who disagrees with it.”

OneNewsNow: “‘This case has just begun,’ states ADF litigation staff counsel [Jim Campbell], ‘and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

Fresno Bee: “Attorney Sara Tappen, of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a supporter of Proposition 8, said the proposition’s backers are entitled to have their appeal heard. She said California voters ‘have a right to be defended,’ despite state officials who she said ‘refused to defend the laws of the people they represent.’”

Washington Post: ‘I’m happy that the judge issued a temporary stay until next week,’ said [Brian Raum], senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group that participated in the case. ‘That gives us the window we need to seek a more permanent stay as it goes before the 9th Circuit.’”

WorldNetDaily: “The comments came today from Randy Thomasson of the family-oriented SaveCalifornia.com after Judge Vaughn Walker decided he wanted same-sex marriages to resume in California on Aug. 18 . . . According to Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell] of the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the key organizations arguing on behalf of traditional marriage advocates ProtectMarriage.com, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked immediately for a stay of Walker’s order.”

Mercury News: “San Mateo County officials said they stand ready to issue gay marriage licenses next week if a judge’s ruling Thursday to begin allowing same-sex unions isn’t put on hold again . . . [Jim Campbell], a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the groups defending Proposition 8, said they would ‘appeal immediately’ to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block same-sex marriages from taking place while the appeal is pending. The broader legal challenge is expected to stretch for another year or two and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Seattle Times (SF Chronicle): “The judge added that the state has not defended Proposition 8, leaving that job to private organizations that may not have the standing to appeal. ‘It appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant,’ Walker wrote . . . Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the organizations defending Proposition 8 in court, said they think they have full standing to carry on their fight.”

New York Times: “‘It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,’ [ADF Attorney Jim Campbell] said in a statement. ‘If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending.’”

Advocates for Faith & Freedom: “Today, San Francisco Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. In doing so, Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8, which was passed by a majority of California voters in 2008. The trial in this case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, occurred in January, 2010, in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.” | Via Religion Clause

Associated Press: “They said the political makeup of the three-judge panel will make all the difference, playing even a bigger role than Walker’s opinion in shaping the future of gay marriage. Legal experts said the case could easily end with a politically conservative panel of the 9th Circuit reinstating the marriage ban and the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to get involved.”

New York Times: “‘We’re working very closely with the county clerk’s office to make sure that everybody who wants to get married Friday, if the stay is removed, can do so,’ Mr. Ting said Thursday in an interview . . . [Jim Campbell], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which defended Proposition 8, said that if a stay was not issued, ‘uncertainty’ from any same-sex marriages would be ‘harmful to the public interest’ while the case was under appeal. That could include the administrative burden if government officials had to annul marriages, he said.”

Michael Foust writes at Baptist Press: “What legal arguments will Prop 8 supporters make during their appeal? Attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com and the Alliance Defense Fund argued at the lower court that children need mothers and fathers and the state has an interest in fostering that relationship . . . Opponents of ‘gay marriage’ warn that religious freedom will suffer if the ruling is upheld, impacting everything from what is taught in public schools to how private businesses operate to the tax exempt status of religious organizations and perhaps even churches.”

Fox News: “The 9th Circuit also has direct jurisdiction over nine western states — eight of which have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. If the court upholds Walker’s ruling, all of those bans could instantly be vulnerable to legal challenge, according to [Jordan Lorence], senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘There’s nothing . . . that would limit the reach of this to just California,’ he said.”

Reuters: “Jim Campbell, an attorney with pro-Proposition 8 Alliance Defense Fund, said supporters have not yet decided whether they would agree to a faster schedule, and he estimated that initial legal briefs defending the law could take two to three months to file. Oral arguments might not begin for another year.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “The emotional plea was rejected by [Douglas Napier], an attorney who defended Prop. 8, as a distraction in a case that he said should have been about voters’ rights. He called the ruling, which was the result of a nonjury trial in January, a legal ‘bump in the road.’ ‘Those that want to uphold traditional family values are going to be outraged,’ said Napier, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz. ‘The whole nation is watching, and the whole nation should be quaking to think that a single judge sitting in California can reverse the will of 7 million voters.’”

Arizona Daily Star: “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a request by Gov. Jan Brewer for an expedited review of a judge’s decision to enjoin the state from enforcing five sections of the law that were supposed to have taken effect Thursday. The judges gave no reason for their refusal.”

Mercury News: “The epic legal struggle over Arizona’s immigration crackdown has landed in a San Francisco-based federal appeals court that is all too familiar with being the center of the nation’s attention — and its inevitable label as the nation’s most liberal court.”

Courthouse News Service: “Ghanaian police were ‘unable or unwilling’ to protect a Baptist preacher from being persecuted by Muslims, the 9th Circuit ruled, reinstating the Christian convert’s bid for protection in the United States.” | Via Religion Clause (links to ruling)

Law.com: “Heather Kendall-Miller, a staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, is in the running to succeed Judge Andrew Kleinfeld for an Alaska-based seat. But Kendall-Miller has some competition from Alaska Supreme Court Justice Morgan Christen, part of a complicated 9th Circuit puzzle the White House is trying to assemble. Christopher Cameron, a professor at Southwestern Law School, is the leading California contender for a separate seat that has long been in dispute between California and Idaho, multiple sources said. But the administration is also apparently looking for an Idaho nominee, these sources said, because the turf war is still going strong.”

“The holy lands that are dear to these tribes are owned by the federal government, which has approved a proposal to expand a ski resort known as the Snowbowl. The proposal is focused on pumping 1.5 million gallons of sewage effluent per day from the nearby city of Flagstaff, Arizona to the Peaks in order to manufacture artificial snow for the Snowbowl. The purpose of the plan is to improve the economic viability of the ski resort, which has suffered diminished profits from decreased annual snowfall. Attempting to halt the plan, the tribes initiated suit against the U.S. Forest Service on a variety of claims. This note will focus on their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). … The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of RFRA in Navajo Nation is too narrow to fulfill Congress’s intent of expanding First Amendment protection. The court interpreted ‘substantial burden’ to fit only the facts of previous Supreme Court cases in lieu of independently determining whether the use of sewage effluent on the Snowbowl places a substantial burden on the tribes’ exercise of religion. This has the effect of completely undermining the congressional intent of RFRA, which was to expand the protection proffered to religious expression.”

“[T]he Board told the court that on June 29 it had begun a rule-making proceeding to adopt an amended rule that would permit facilitated referrals for all pharmacies and pharmacists when they are unable or unwilling to fill a prescription for any reason, including conscientious reasons.”

ACLJ: “The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of the American Center for Law and Justice’s (ACLJ) client in a multi-million dollar fraud case against Planned Parenthood (PP) affiliates in California. … The allegation in this case is that PP affiliates in California illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling – at taxpayer expense. State audits in both California and Washington State have found PP affiliates guilty of overbilling.”

Catholic News Service: “The U.S. Supreme Court has left standing a lower court ruling that will allow an Oregon man to try to hold the Vatican financially responsible for his sexual abuse by a priest, if he can persuade the court that the priest was an employee of the Vatican. By declining to take Holy See v. John Doe, the court June 28 left intact the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said because of the way Oregon law defines employment, the Vatican is not protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act from potential liability for the actions of a priest who Doe, the unidentified plaintiff, said sexually abused him in the 1960s.” | Related: Charles J. Chaput: Suing the Church

Mercury News: Robert Norse’s Nazi salute lasted fewer than five seconds before he was removed from the Santa Cruz City Council meeting in handcuffs. But the Santa Claus-bearded gadfly’s free speech lawsuit against the city has lasted more than six years and may be destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals will convene a rare 11-judge panel to consider how thick-skinned and tolerant public officials need to be before they can silence and evict dissenters from meetings.

Law.com: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-7 today to advance the nomination of Judge Robert Chatigny for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. All but one Democrat voted for the nomination and all Republicans against it, similar to the committee’s May 13 vote on the nomination of Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., voted ‘pass’ on Chatigny but did not explain her vote. Both nominations are likely to be drawn-out fights on the Senate floor.

Daily Journal of California: “The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, often categorized as too liberal and out of sync with the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court, faces some unusual competition this term for its crown as the most reversed circuit. Earlier this week, the justices reversed the Cincinnati, Ohio-based 6th Circuit for the seventh time in seven cases (including one summary reversal), meaning a 100 percent reversal rate for the term.” | Via How Appealing.

Tucson Citizen: “This morning, the Supreme Court denied a request the Goldwater Institute filed two weeks ago asking for an injunction to stop the use of matching funds this year. But the Court gave the Institute permission to file the request again along with an assurance that the Institute plans to appeal the recent opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that overruled the District Court and declared matching funds to be legal. A new request and a commitment to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision was filed this afternoon.”

LA Times Editorial: “The United States has a long tradition of allowing tax breaks for charitable contributions, including donations to churches and other religious organizations. But the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that a program that offers tax credits for contributions to provide scholarships for private schools breaches the wall separating church and state. It’s a tortured decision that the Supreme Court rightly has agreed to review . . . ”

Thursday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an important college free speech decision in a case that pits a college harassment policy against a professor’s racially insensitive comments. (H/t to Professor Volokh who has thorough coverage here, here, here, and here.) . . . The Ninth Circuit . . . found that the officials deserved qualified immunity because the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not give the employees a right to be free from offensive speech on a college campus.”

“The case concerns an Arizona school choice program that has been serving low- and middle-income families for 13 years. The state grants a tax credit to individuals who donate to nonprofit entities that award scholarships for children to attend private schools — including religious schools . . . ”

“[T]he Ninth Circuit’s reasonable mistake of age defense fails to adequately protect the interests of children against the long-lasting physical and psychological effects of being photographed or filmed while engaging in sexually explicit acts. As a compromise between these two approaches, this Note proposes an intermediate standard that would require defendants claiming a mistake of age defense to show that they verified child subjects’ ages with government documents or officials. By establishing a clearer standard than the Ninth Circuit’s reasonableness test and by providing some defense to defendants, this intermediate standard would protect children from the harms of child pornography and quell First Amendment concerns.”

Religion Clause Blog: “In Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, (9th Cir., May 5, 2010), the 9th Circuit held that a Jewish organization which had contracted with the Washington Department of Corrections to provide Jewish religious services to prisoners acted under color of state law and not merely as a private party for purposes of a prisoner’s RLUIPA claim.”

ADF Attorney Travis C. Barham writing at speakupmovement.org/university: “Each year, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association (NAGAAA) sponsors the ‘Gay Softball World Series.’ But three bisexual men—represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights—filed a discrimination suit in Seattle, Washington because their team was disqualified for having too many ‘heterosexual’ players. And what is the NAGAAA’s response? Well, it claims it is a private organization and ‘can determine its membership based on its goals.’ At one point, the players were told, ‘This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.’ Does this sound vaguely familiar? All of a sudden, portions of the homosexual community recognize the importance of the freedom of association, which comes as a refreshing change.”

Courthouse News Service: “A split 9th Circuit panel rejected the claims of a Muslim woman who said she suffered a ‘deeply humiliating and defiling experience’ when she was forced to remove her headscarf for security reasons at the Orange County Superior Courthouse . . . The district court dismissed Khatib’s religious freedom claim, ruling that a courthouse holding cell is not an ‘institution’ as defined by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The Act protects the right of institutionalized people to practice religion.” | Khatib v. County of Orange, No. 08-56423 (9th Cir. May 3, 2010)